ACLU lawyers blame Christians for Orlando attack committed by Islamic terrorist

Omar Mateen, the Islamic Terrorist Who Attacked Orlando Gay Club
Omar Mateen, the Islamic Terrorist Who Attacked Orlando Gay Club

Everyone has heard the news about the latest Islamic terror attack in Orlando.

A few quick things about it before I make my main point:

First, it was another gun-free zone, and the majority of multiple-victim public shootings happen in gun-free zones. This is because attackers know that their law-abiding victims will be unarmed.

Second, Islamic terrorists have had an easy time under President Obama, who likes to blame Islamic terrorism on anyone except Islamic terrorists. This Democrat Party moral relativism has led to a staggering 85 Islamic terrorist plots since 9/11.

Third, we know that Obama has been pulling punches against Islamic terrorism throughout the last 8 years. A perfect example of this the fact that the Orlando attacker was a “person of interest” to the FBI in 2013 and 2014. But nothing was done.

Fourth, former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi what Muslims are taught about this issue:

Islam itself has always taught that gays should be executed. Muhammad commanded: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (Sunan Abu Daud 4447). Imams who have been trained in these Islamic teachings are teaching in our communities. Just three months ago, an imam who is well known for proclaiming Muhammad’s teachings on homosexuality spoke in Orlando. In a prior speech about homosexuals he was noted to have said, “Let’s get rid of them now” (video and news article). The imam spoke at an Islamic center that is less than 20 miles from the site of today’s atrocities. Some American-born Muslims, such as Omar, are taking teachings like these at face value, listening to their imams and following Muhammad.

The Obama administration is still “working to determine a motive“, despite the fact that the attacker is known to have pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Of course they are. It’s probably just workplace violence.

The ACLU lays the blame on…

But here is what I wanted to write about this time – something that my friend William found and posted, from The Daily Caller.

It’s about the ACLU, which is a group that opposes civil liberties, such as religious liberty. They also oppose national security measures designed to protect the public from terrorist threats.

It says:

Several American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys took to Twitter to blame the “Christian Right” for Sunday’s deadly terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which left 50 dead and 53 injured.

Chase Strangio, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS Project, claimed the social and political environment cultivated by Christian conservatives in recent months was to blame for the shooting at Pulse, a nightclub popular with Orlando’s LGBT community.

Strangio also called for solidarity between American Muslims and LGBT communities, arguing both are maligned and oppressed by the religious right.

Isn’t that interesting? After trying to stop common sense measures to prevent terrorist attacks, the ACLU doesn’t blame themselves for what happened. They blame their enemies – the Bible-believing Christians. Bible-believing Christians respond to the gay agenda by using words to express disagreement, not by violence. The violence is done by the Islamic terrorists.

What do I think about the tweets by the ACLU attorney? Well, the ACLU is an organization that hates religious liberty, and public expressions of Christian belief and convictions. When a person denies God, they lose the rational ground for object morality, and moral reasoning becomes impossible. Anything becomes morally permissible, including lying. Some people are so deep in a sinful lifestyle, that aren’t able to think clearly about facts that are plain to everyone else. The hate just dominates them to such a degree that rational thought becomes impossible.

Study of elementary school children finds entrenched discrimination against boys

The study is here (PDF), and Susan Walsh writes about the study on her blog.

Excerpt:

A new study of nearly 6,000 elementary school children has found that boys are discriminated against beginning in kindergarten. Christopher Cornwell, an economics professor at the University of Georgia, says that ”gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls.”

Despite having higher scores on standardized tests, boys get lower grades than girls. Why? Because teachers are basing grades at least partly on classroom behavior, and the standards are very much geared to female norms.

[…]Here’s what the disparity looks like for kindergarten boys:

Std. Deviation Test Scores Grades
Reading -.017 -.27
Math +.02 -.15
Science +.035 -.14

(Note: Values are approx., gauged visually from study graphic.)

Another interesting finding was that boys who adhere to female norms on non-cognitive skills were not penalized. Effectively, the more female behavior was rewarded with a grade “bonus” for males.

The implications of this are obvious. Masculinity, even normal maleness, is being punished in schools from a very young age. Only the most female-acting boys are rewarded with a fair assessment.

I found this story on Stuart Schnederman’s blog, and this is what he had to say about it:

The results demonstrated that schoolteachers are prejudiced against boys. When teachers do not just grade on performance, but include a number of intangible qualities that girls are more likely to possess, they are acting as bigots.

I recommend that everyone pick up a copy of “The War Against Boys” by AEI scholar Christina Hoff Sommers to learn more about this anti-male discrimination problem.

I see a lot of people raving at men to “man up” these days. Many of those people are pastors who remain ignorant about the real, systemic causes of male underachievement. Even very obvious factors – like the dominance of female teachers and administrators in schools – are ignored by the blame-men crowd. Boys generally learn better when they learn from male teachers in all-male classrooms. But unfortunately for boys, there are people who don’t want to do what works for men, especially when it doesn’t fit with feminist ideology.

Study: women who lose their virginity in their teens are more likely to divorce

College students puking in toilet
College students puking in toilet

The UK Daily Mail reports on a study that shows that women who lose their virginity as teenagers are more likely to divorce.

Excerpt:

Women who lost their virginity as young teenagers are more likely to divorce – especially if it was unwanted, according to new research.

The University of Iowa study shows that 31 per cent of women who had sex for the first time as teens divorced within five years, and 47 per cent within 10 years.

Among women who delayed sex until adulthood, 15 per cent divorced at five years, compared to 27 per cent at 10 years.

The findings were published in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Author Anthony Paik, associate professor of sociology in the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, examined the responses of 3,793 married and divorced women to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

The study showed, however, that if a young woman made the choice to lose her virginity as a teenager, there was no direct link to a marital split later in life.

If the sexual act took place before the age of 16 women were shown more likely to divorce, even if it was wanted.

Thirty-one percent of women who lost their virginity during adolescence had premarital sex with multiple partners, compared to 24 per cent of those who waited.

Twenty-nine percent experienced premarital conceptions, versus 15 percent who waited.

One in four women who had sex as a teen had a baby before they were married, compared to only one in ten who waited until adulthood.

Only one per cent of women surveyed said they chose to have sex at age 13 or younger, compared to five per cent at age 14 or 15, and 10 per cent at age 16 or 17.

Forty two per cent reported that their first sexual intercourse before age 18 that was not completely wanted.

Fifty eight per cent of the group waited until age 18 or older to have sex. Of those, 22 per cent said it was unwanted, compared to 21 per cent who said it was wanted.

Researchers concluded sex itself may not increase the probability of divorce, while factors such as a higher number of sexual partners, pregnancy, or out-of-wedlock birth increased the risk for some.

If you want a stable marriage, then you don’t have sex before you’re married. There are tons of virgins out there, and there is a huge difference in the quality of romantic relationships when both parties exercise self-control with physical touching. Don’t let it go too far – you lose some of what love and marriage can be.